19:52 - SpawdophonikDoes anyone live in an American suburb, if so is it still like this:

19:33 - Marcel Hubregtsebtw if you want to hear some really off the wall covers when compared to the originals listen to this split [link]

19:32 - Marcel HubregtseYeah that's a great cover. Loved at first listen when I got hold of the vinyl version of One in Darkness, Two in Damnation, Three in Death, 2002 - 2007 compilation on their tour in 2013.

10:39 - Ace FrawleyShit, just read this on Twitter: Due to some recent activity that we as individuals have zero tolerance for, Danny Walker is no longer the drummer in Intronaut. What the hell happened?

Original post

Ok, so first of all, let me quote wikipedia, which contains a fairly decent description of what Discordianism is.

Quote:

Discordianism is a modern religion centered on the idea that chaos is all that there is, and that order and disorder, the latter considered a concept distinct from chaos, are both illusions (referred to, respectively, as the "Aneristic" and "Eristic" illusions) that are imposed on chaos. It was founded circa 1958-1959 by Malaclypse the Younger with the publication of its principal text, the Principia Discordia. There is some division as to whether it should be regarded as a parody religion, and if so to what degree. It has been called "Zen for roundeyes", based on similarities with absurdist interpretations of the Rinzai school. Discordianism recognizes chaos, discord, and dissent as valid and desirable qualities, in contrast with most religions, which idealize harmony and order. Eris, the Greek mythological goddess of discord, has also become the matron deity of the religion Discordianism.

Personally, I am generally unwilling to identify with any particular religion; however, since this one is in some ways a parody of a religion, I have little problem calling myself a discordian. Besides, its major 'tenets' of seeing chaos as the only absolute (and a desirable one at that) really align quite well with my own beliefs and philosophical conclusions. Furthermore, a religion based on chaos cannot actually have any rules, which is quite visible in Principia Discordia, which really is more of a book filled with random nonsense than anything to base morality or metaphysics on. Indeed, I see Principia Discordia as a successful example of rhizomatic writing, ie. using bits and pieces of random information to creatively come up with something new. Even Deleuze's "Thousand Plateaus" (the book where the rhizome is defined) was not successful at being an actual example of rhizomatic writing and I see it fitting that a book written by somebody unknown and filled with nonsense is instead a successful attempt. Alternatively, Principia Discordia can be seen as the literary equivalent of a chaos magick sigil, also fitting considering the ideas and methodology behind chaos magick are clearly discordian.

In this thread we can either talk about Discordianism as a religion or about the basic ideas of chaos being the sole absolute. Interestingly, many occult or satanist ways of thinking also claim to favor chaos, however, the chaos they favor is really what discordians call 'disorder' ie. a concept defined by its binary opposition to order. In other words, most people favoring chaos in fact react against order, a practice that does not free them of an arborescent (or in discordian terminology 'aneiristic') outlook on reality.

Obviously, there is much more that can be discussed here; however, I will stop here for now and see if an interesting discussion appears. I am generally fairly secretive about my own beliefs and prefer not to broadcast them to other people but I decided now might be a time to have some constructive discussion. Hopefully, we can have some fun here discussing chaos and what it implies on morality, metaphysics and philosophy of the mind.

Hmmm I haven't heard of Discordianism before this thread, however I must say that it aligns moderately well with my own deductions regarding the nature of reality. (It has always seemed rational that chaos can be the only constant). Despite all this, my outlook is fundamentally different because chaos is NOT my "goal" if you will. Yes, it may be the only constant, but why strive for a constant? If life, morals, etc are all arbitrary except to promote chaos, then is the notion of chaos not also arbitrary? Perhaps I'm not entirely grasping the concept at hand, but if I were to embrace all of the principals taught through Discordianism, it would seem that individual pleasure seeking would be the only constructive activity.

As I described previously, individual pleasure seeking would not be constructive since it has consequences that can hinder curiosity. Certainly, I think there is room in everybody's life for some individual pleasure, but overindulging in it will certainly result in various forms of disorder. You might get addicted or influence the people around you in a way that minimizes your ability to engage in curiosity. A true discordian would always question everything since that brings about change.

Chaos cannot be defined but I suppose we can call it a constant since it is an ideal. pursuing chaos simply means pursuing perpetual change, it is not an attainable goal. I think you might be trying to define chaos as something that it is not, and this definition might indeed be arbitrary. But after that definition goes out the window, what remains is pure chaos, its not arbitrary because it cannot be reached.

Hmmm I haven't heard of Discordianism before this thread, however I must say that it aligns moderately well with my own deductions regarding the nature of reality. (It has always seemed rational that chaos can be the only constant). Despite all this, my outlook is fundamentally different because chaos is NOT my "goal" if you will. Yes, it may be the only constant, but why strive for a constant? If life, morals, etc are all arbitrary except to promote chaos, then is the notion of chaos not also arbitrary? Perhaps I'm not entirely grasping the concept at hand, but if I were to embrace all of the principals taught through Discordianism, it would seem that individual pleasure seeking would be the only constructive activity.

As I described previously, individual pleasure seeking would not be constructive since it has consequences that can hinder curiosity. Certainly, I think there is room in everybody's life for some individual pleasure, but overindulging in it will certainly result in various forms of disorder. You might get addicted or influence the people around you in a way that minimizes your ability to engage in curiosity. A true discordian would always question everything since that brings about change.

Chaos cannot be defined but I suppose we can call it a constant since it is an ideal. pursuing chaos simply means pursuing perpetual change, it is not an attainable goal. I think you might be trying to define chaos as something that it is not, and this definition might indeed be arbitrary. But after that definition goes out the window, what remains is pure chaos, its not arbitrary because it cannot be reached.

For me, indulging curiosities has always been one of my greatest pleasures, so I suppose in my case pleasure seeking would be conducive to chaos, but I see your point.

If pursing chaos means pursuing perpetual change, then couldn't perpetual change at least be used as a means of defining chaos? I don't mean to play the devil's advocate, I'm just trying to gain a better understanding.

If pursing chaos means pursuing perpetual change, then couldn't perpetual change at least be used as a means of defining chaos? I don't mean to play the devil's advocate, I'm just trying to gain a better understanding.

Yeah, I agree, perpetual change is a way of defining chaos, or rather, what can be observed about chaos, if not the term chaos itself.

I highly suggest reading Robert Anton Wilson's books or listening to ALL of his lectures. Search RAWarchive on youtube and listen to all of his lectures and be entertained Fnord hours, maybe. Hail Eris!